Jharkhand High Court
Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.891 of 2003
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 19.06.2003 and order of
sentence dated 20.06.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Seraikella in Sessions Trial No.23/2002]
-----
Kashi Mahato, son of Sri Narayan Mahato resident of Village-
Kalogunju P.S. Seraikella District- Seraikella, Kharsawan.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. On:- 19th August, 2025 Pronounced on:- 10/09/2025
1. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that another co-convict
namely Butru Mahato, the sole appellant in Cr.A.DB No. 864 of
2003 has died. Hence, the appeal related to him stands abated.
2. Instant criminal appeal is preferred by sole appellant for setting
aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.06.2003 and
order of sentence dated 20.06.2003 passed by Learned Sessions
Judge, Seraikela, Kharsawan in S.T. Case No. 23 of 2002 whereby
and whereunder, the appellant along with one Butru Mahato has
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
3. We have heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned
judgment submitted that main overt act has been attributed
against the co-convict namely Butru Mahato and not against the
present appellant. Admittedly, the informant is not an eye-witness
of the occurrence and other witnesses of facts except P.W.4 are
either hearsay witnesses or declared hostile or witnesses of formal
nature. The star witness of prosecution is P.W.4 (Dhani Ram
Mahto) has specifically admitted that when the police had come to
lift the dead body of Daitari Mahato then interrogated with him
but he did not disclose any knowledge about the occurrence and
when the accused persons were arrested then, he was also
apprehended by police and brought to the police station, where he
was kept for four days and after recording confessional statement
of Butru and Kashi Mahato, he was forced to give statement as
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
desired by the police. Apart from the above suspicious
circumstances under which the statement of P.W.4 was recorded,
this witness has deposed to the effect that on request of Daitari
Mahato (since deceased) he left him towards the village pond and
Kashi Mahato and Butru Mahato were also holding the deceased.
Thereafter, he returned to his home due to fear. Thereafter what
happened, this witness knows nothing. Therefore, except last seen
theory nothing has been stated by P.W.4, which also appears to
have been given under compulsion. No other witnesses have been
able to prove the charges leveled against the appellant. The
learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the
evidence of P.W.4 and held the appellant guilty without any legal
and cogent evidence against him. Therefore, impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is liable to be set
aside, allowing this appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
and submitted that in the examination-in-chief, P.W.4 and other
witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In the
cross-examination, P.W.4 has stated about force used against him
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
by the police in order to record his statement, but only by that
reason his testimony cannot be disbelieved or discarded as a
whole. The learned trial court has very wisely and in threadbare
manner appreciated the evidence available on record and arrived
at right conclusion about guilt of the appellant. There is no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment and no legal force in
contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, this
appeal is fit to be dismissed.
6. The only point for determination in this appeal is that whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
appellant suffers any error of law calling for any interference by
way of this appeal?
7. It appears that first information report has been lodged on the basis
of Fardbeyan of Sushen Mahato (P.W.5) stating inter alia that on
16.05.2001 at about 14:30 hours near Turasai village S.I. Arbind
Kumar Manjhi got recorded his statement, wherein it is alleged
that on 16.05.2001 in the morning, informant had gone to Rajnagar
market, where he was informed about the death of a person near
government pond towards north side of the village. The name of
the deceased was disclosed as Daitari Mahato. It is further alleged
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
that the deceased Daitari Mahato was elder brother of the
informant, he went towards the pond and saw dead body of his
brother, throat was cut by sharp cutting weapon and there was
blood stains on earth. It is suspected that deceased was indulged
in Ojhagiri and due to some dispute with any person informant's
brother might have been killed. Informant has also expressed his
suspicion that since 15 years, land dispute is going on with Radhey
Shyam Mahto, Jagarnath Mahto and Kusho Mahto, who might
have committed murder of the deceased.
8. On the basis of above information, Seraikella P.S. Case No.
55/2001(Exhibit-3) dated 16.05.2001 was registered for the offence
under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against Radhey Shyam Mahto,
Jagarnath Mahto and Kusho Mahto. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Kashi Mahato
(present appellant) and Butru Mahato. The appellant denied the
charges and claim to be tried.
9. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence has been passed, which has been assailed in this
appeal.
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
10. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined
altogether 10 witnesses. Apart from oral evidence following
documentary evidences have also been adduced:-
Exhibit- 1 to 1/1- Signature of witnesses on inquest report.
Exhibit-1/2 to 1/3- Signature of witness Manoj Kumar and Sudhir
Mahto on seizure list.
Exhibit-2- Fardbeyan of Sushen Mahato.
Exhibit-2/1- Endorsement on fardbeyan.
Exhibit-3- Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-4- Carbon copy of inquest report.
Exhibit-5- Seizure list of blood stained soil and red colour
Gamchha.
Exhibit-6- Seizure list of Hasua.
Exhibit-7- Post-Mortem Report.
Exhibit-8- Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of
Dhani Ram Mahato.
11. It appears that in the course of investigation statement of Dhani
Ram Mahato (P.W.4) was recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. on 10th September, 2001 which is the basis of filing charge-
sheet filed against the present appellant.
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
12. On the other hand no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence. The case of defence is false implication due to
previous enmity and plea of innocence.
13. In the above background of the case, we have to examine the
evidence adduced by prosecution in order to prove the charges
leveled against the appellant.
P.W.1 Muchiram Mohanty:- According to his evidence, he has
only seen the dead body of the deceased at his village pond. The
murder was committed by cutting throat and inquest report was
prepared in his presence on which he has put his signature and
marked as Exhibit-1. Nothing else has been stated by this witness.
P.W.2 Kailash Mahato: is also the witness of inquest and proved
his signature as Exhibit 1/1 and does not know anything about the
occurrence.
P.W.3 Bidya Mahato is also a local villager, he has stated nothing
and declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.5 Sushen Mahato is the informant and younger brother of the
deceased. Admittedly, he is not the eye-witness of the occurrence
rather he had gone to Rajnagar market, where he came to know
from a man of village Satrusal that his brother Daitari Mahato has
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
been murdered and the dead body is lying near the government
pond. Police also arrived at the place of occurrence where his
statement was recorded and he put his left thumb impression.
Nothing else has been stated by this witness against the appellant.
P.W.6 Sudhir Mahato has been declared hostile by the
prosecution, although he has admitted his signature on seizure list
as Exhibit-1/2, but failed to state that what was recovered.
In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he has denied the
suggestion that on 07.09.2001 at 09:45 AM, the police have
searched the house of Butru Mahto and recovered a Hasua.
P.W.7. Manoj Kumar Mahato although has denied any search in
the house of Butru Mahato, but has proved his signature on
seizure list as Exhibit-1/3.
P.W.8 Arbind Kr. Manjhi is the sub-inspector and investigating
officer of this case. According to his evidence, on 16.05.2001 he was
posted as Sub-Inspector at Seraikella Police station and S.I.
Satananad Singh was the Officer-In-Charge. On that day, on the
basis of rumor that a dead body was lying at village Kala Gujju
near government pond, entry was made in station diary and he
was sent to verify the incident. This witness arrived at place of
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
occurrence at about 02.30 P.M. and saw the dead body in presence
of several villagers where Fardbeyan of Sushen Mahato, brother of
the deceased was recorded which is marked as Exhibit-2.
14. On the basis of fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. (Exhibit-3) was registered
and charge of investigation was given to him. He has further
proved the inquest report of the deceased which was prepared in
presence of the witnesses namely, Muchi Ram Mohanty and
Kailash Mahato which is marked as Exhibit-4. He also seized blood
stained earth and blood stained Gamcha of the deceased wrapped
in his neck in presence of witnesses Birendra Singh Sardar and
Ram Barik and seizure list was prepared (Exhibit-5). He also
obtained the post-mortem report of the deceased. In course of
investigation, he recorded the statement of Kailash Mahato, Muchi
Ram Mohanty, Vidya Mahato and Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4) and
also inspected the place of occurrence. Thereafter he was
transferred and further charge of investigation was handed over to
the then Officer In-charge on 20.08.2001. He has also conducted the
investigation as regards the involvement of Radhey Shayam
Mahato, Jagarnath Mahato and Kusho Mahato against whom the
F.I.R. was registered, but in connection with their involvement in
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
this case, he has not mentioned the name of witnesses interrogated
by him in the case diary. He also admits in his evidence that Dhani
Ram Mahato (P.W.4) has stated before him that on the date of
occurrence at about 07:00 PM he was coming along with wife of
Bengali Mahato and he has not stated that anyone has threatened
him. He recorded the statement of Dhani Ram Mahato on
21.05.2001, but his statement was not recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C. He also admits that seized materials from the place of
occurrence were not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination.
P.W.9 Satanand Singh is the second investigating officer of this
case, he took charge of investigation of this case on 20.08.2001 from
the previous investigating officer. According to his evidence, on
the basis of information from spy, he raided the house of Kashi
Mahato and Butru Mahato who confessed their guilt and also
produced the 'Hasua' concealing in their house used in this
occurrence. The said 'Hasua' was seized in presence of witnesses
namely, Sudhir Mahato and Manoj Kumar and seizure list
(Exhibit-6) was prepared. He has also recorded the statement of
Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4) and on the basis of supervision note of
D.S.P., he got recorded the statement of Dhani Ram Mahato under
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and finding sufficient evidence
submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons Kashi Mahato
and Butru Mahato.
In his cross-examination, this witness specifically admits
that after arrest of the accused persons namely Kashi Mahato and
Butru Mahato, he recorded the statement of Dhani Ram Mahato
(P.W.4) on 09.09.2001. He also admits that the Hasua seized in this
case was not blood stained. He also admits that he has conducted
no investigation in respect of named accused persons in the F.I.R.
He denied the suggestion of defence that after threatening and
assaulting the witness Dhani Ram Mahato, his statement was
recorded by him as well as under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
P.W.10. Dr. Ajit Sharan is the doctor who has conducted the post-
mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Daitari
Mahato on 17.05.2001 and found following injuries:-
i) Incised wound on front neck, transversely place above adami
apple 3" X 1" X cutting of trachea, Oesophagus major vessels and
soft tissues.
ii) Multiple abrasion on back of chest 2" X 1", 1" X 1/2 ", 1" X 11/2"
iii) Multiple abrasion on buttock 1" X 1", 2" X 1/2", 11/2" X 1".
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
He has opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in
nature and injury No.1 was caused by sharp cutting weapon while
injury No.(ii) and (iii) were caused by hard and blunt substance.
According to him, injury was sufficient to cause death.
15. On the other hand case of defence is denial from occurrence and
false implication and plea of innocence. The Statement of the
accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. also do
not go to show that any incriminating circumstances were got
explained by them.
16. The evidence of witnesses as discussed above does not disclose
anything showing involvement of the appellant in the alleged
offence of murder. The appellant has been convicted in this case
only on the basis of evidence of Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4)
whose testimony is as under:-
According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence he was
grazing cattle, then he met with Daitari Mahato (deceased) and on
his request left Daitari Mahato to the pond. Thereafter, Kashinath
and Butru proceeded along with Daitari Mahato towards bandh
side, this witness was threatened by Kashi Mahato and Butru
Mahato, hence he returned to his home. Later on, he came to know
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
that Daitari Mahato has been killed. From the evidence of P.W.8,
the first investigating Officer (S.I. Arbind Kumar Manjhi), it is
obvious that the statement of this witness recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C., but nothing was disclosed by him implicating
the appellants in the alleged murder. The Second Investigating
Officer (P.W.9) Satanand Singh has also stated in the examination-
in-chief that in the course of investigation, he also recorded
statement of Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4) on 09.09.2001, but did not
find anything exculpatory to the accused persons Kashi Mahato
and Butru Mahato. The statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
was recorded at the instance of D.S.P. who was supervising the
investigation. It is also admitted by P.W.4 (Dhani Ram Mahato) in
his evidence that he was assaulted and threatened and kept at
police station by the police for four days, therefore, his statement
was recorded by police by using force and he does not know what
was recorded by the police. He has not made any statement
regarding involvement of the accused persons in the alleged
offence.
17. We further find that if the statement of P.W.4 Dhani Ram Mahato
may be taken on its face value even then, he has disclosed only the
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
last seen theory and nothing else. Neither the first investigating
officer nor the second investigating officer has conducted any
investigation in respect of named accused persons in the F.I.R. and
no reason or explanation has been given during examination at
trial. The seized material is the weapon of offence which has also
stated by the investigating officer to be not stained with blood,
therefore, no question arises that the said weapon was used in
commission of offence, in spite of the fact that the same has been
recovered from the house of co-accused Butru Mahato. Blood
stained gamcha and blood stained earth was also not sent to F.S.L.
for chemical examination. Therefore, no connecting evidence is
available against the appellant.
18. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons we are of the firm view
that Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4) is projected by the prosecution on
threat and compulsion as an eye-witness, but only material stated
by him is the last seen theory of deceased and accused persons
Kashi Mahato and Butru Mahato. We also find that the P.W.9, the
second Investigating Officer of the case has specifically admitted
that both the accused persons were arrested on the basis of
information furnished by the police spy and not on the basis of
2025:JHHC:27710-DB
any disclosure statement of Dhani Ram Mahato (P.W.4) whose
statement was recorded after arrest of the accused persons. In
view of above discussion, there appears no cogent or reliable
evidence at all against the appellant to fasten with the liability of
murder of the deceased. It appears that learned trial court has
miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on
record and arrived at wrong conclusion. Therefore, impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant is
hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
19. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of
bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged.
20. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to
the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi
Date:10/09/2025
Amar/- N.A.F.R.
